In Defense of Cosmopolitanism

Nowadays, the word "cosmopolitan" conjures an image of jet-setting, latte-sipping elitists with little or no regard for their fellow citizens. In fact, cosmopolitans are idealists for whom love of country begins with a fundamental commitment to the equal dignity of all human beings.

LONDON – Cosmopolitanism gets plenty of bad press nowadays. “Cosmopolitan” is often paired with “elites,” as in the cosmopolitan elites who sip cappuccino in the morning and pinot noir at night, jet around to places like Davos, and enjoy big gains from the digital revolution.

Once upon a time, anti-cosmopolitanism was code for anti-Semitism. Nowadays, cosmopolitans are former UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s “citizens of nowhere”: a foil for the noble citizens of somewhere who remain firmly rooted in the communities supposedly under attack by the globalization promoted by heartless cosmopolitans.

There is just one problem with this narrative: it is deeply misleading. And, for political reasons, that confusion matters.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account or want to create one to read two commentaries for free?
Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Andrés Velasco, a former presidential candidate and finance minister of Chile, is Dean of the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is the author of numerous books and papers on international economics and development, and has served on the faculty at Harvard, Columbia, and New York Universities.

Andrés Velasco explains why cosmopolitanism has been a target by right-wing populists since the 2008 global financial crisis. Populism and cosmopolitanism are commonly seen as antitheses, reducing populism to communalism and cosmopolitanism to elitism. There is nothing modern about the two phenomena, which both have their roots in ancient Greece. While populists often pose a threat to liberal democracy, cosmopolitans seldom do – they are “idealists for whom love of country begins with a fundamental commitment to the equal dignity of all human beings.”In his defence of cosmopolitanism, the author explains why the term has been misunderstood. It derives from the Greek word kosmopolites, meaning “a citizen of the world.” According to the philosopher, Martha Nussbaum, the cosmopolitan political tradition in Western thought begins with the Greek Cynic Diogenes, who, when asked where he came from, responded that he was a citizen of the world. Rather than declaring his lineage, city, social class, or gender, he defined himself as a human being, implicitly asserting the equal worth of all human beings.Cosmopolitanism can be understood as an ethical concept within which the discourse on human rights and theory of justice takes place. The author says it is “all about equality, contrary to what the prevailing narrative suggests. It is about defining ourselves precisely by what makes us equal – our common humanity – and not by whether we went to an elite school or make a lot of money from tech stocks or attend Davos. It is hard to think of a nobler ideal.” He cites an evidence for resistance to hierarchies. “One day, Alexander the Great came and stood over Diogenes, who was quietly sitting under the sun. ‘Ask me for anything you want,’ Alexander said. ‘Get out of my light,’ replied Diogenes. Nussbaum finds much inspiration in ‘this image of the dignity of humanity, which can shine forth in its nakedness unless shadowed by the false claims of rank and kinship.’”In the face of rising nationalism in many parts of the world, which takes an ungly, authoritarian turn – in the guise of patriotism, the author calls for a “counterattack.” The fundamental difference between the two movements are often overlooked. Nationalism is a feeling of attachment and commitment to a country. Patriotism is based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests. It has its origins some 2,000 years prior to the rise of nationalism in the 19th century.Far-right populists have hijacked nationalism – not to defend “common men and women against the alleged onslaught of others, whether foreigners, immigrants, or rootless cosmopolitan elites” – but to foster “a culture of hatred,” and promote xenophobia, nativism, racism, sexism and jingoism. They aim to tear the social fabric apart, pitting a virtuous and homogeneous people against the elites, who are depicted as depriving the sovereign people of their rights, values, identity, and voice. The author says “cosmopolitan liberals can beat the populists at their own game. There is no conflict between love of humanity and love of country, stresses Nussbaum. On the contrary, as she argued in an earlier book, Political Emotions, love for a country’s democratic traditions and institutions is key to keeping them stable, robust, and capable of guaranteeing equal rights and equal dignity for all.” This love can foster commitment to shared goals and keep at bay the forces of disgust and envy.Both the author George Orwell and the philosopher Jürgen Habermas would agree that nationalism is “toxic” while patriotism “is not.” The best kind of patriotism is “one based on age-old values such as liberty, dignity, and mutual respect.” Habermas called it “constitutional patriotism (others have called it civic patriotism).” The author calls it “liberal patriotism.” The perception of “cosmopolitan liberals being “jet-setting, latte-guzzling elitists with little or no regard for their fellow citizens” is hence misleading. However one should not throw everything into the same pot. Not all cosmpolitans have high principles and pursue noble ideals, like Diogenes.

The author states that Muslims 'face new barriers to citizenship in India'. This is false. Non Muslims who fled persecution from 3 named countries and arrived in India before 2014 may qualify for citizenship. Muslims fleeing persecution may also qualify on a case by case basis. But such Muslims will be killed by Indian Muslims. That's why Dr. Taslima Nasrin had to flee to Sweden. Indian Muslims put a price on her head after she fled Bangladesh and came to India. India can't keep Muslims accused of 'apostasy' safe in India. As for economic migrants, they have never qualified for Indian citizenship. The Govt. of India has been giving repeated assurances to the Assamese since 1950 that it would deport illegal migrants. Cosmopolitans may not care greatly about the rights of indigenous people. A white man from Chile may consider that the indigenous people of that country were of no account. However, in India, indigenous people can fight back.

Is Martha Nussbaum of Native American descent? Her 'cosmopolitanism' is about the right of her race to take whatever it wants from any other people around the globe. What about George Orwell? He was born in India and served in the Burmese Police. Was he Indian? No. Was he Burmese? No. He was 'cosmopolitan' certainly- a member of an Imperial Race.

Let us turn to Diogenes. Did he really 'open up the possibility of a moral approach to politics'? No. He lived in a tub. He had no influence whatsoever. Pyrrho accompanied Alexander to the Punjab and learnt that Greek psilosophy was mere hot air.

From Santiago to San Francisco, the world is witnessing a revival of authoritative bullshit composed by has-been stuffed shirts. Consider the case of Amartya Sen. As Chancellor of Nalanda University did he not have a 'duty of material aid' to the students there who could not even get yoghurt, let alone proper medical care or freedom from sexual harassment? It is not enougght to assert the inherent worth of a Nobel Prize winner who is poor at thinking. Some basic standard of equal access to grey cells is required for that Nobel Prize winner to realize her human potential- or at least come in out of the rain.

On the other hand I agree with the author that Equality is not the enemy of Liberty. It used to be because Fraternity told it that Liberty dun snaked its boo. But Fratenity was lying so now Equality and Liberty are quite chummy. As Martha Nussbaum argued in her forthcoming book, it is nice to be nice. Being naughty isn't nice because it refuses to guarantee equal rights and equal dignity and equal cuddliness to all nice children.

Velasco thinks of himself as a cosmopolitan but is apparently a hypocosmopolitan or a hemicosmopolitan as he doesn't seem to integrate any non-European cultures and civilisations in his world (cosmo) view.

This comment was removed by a moderator. Replies to this comment may also be deleted. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Nationalism (aka identity politics) gave us WW1, WW2 and the Cold War, it is an ideology that logically speaking, cannot succeed, because it draws a country into perpetual conflict (military, economic or otherwise) with every other country. Cosmopolitanism is the future but like (say) flying skateboards, one should be cautious in adopting it wholesale and all at once. If you boil the frog too quickly it jumps out the pot (e.g. the Trump, Boris backlashes) when on the other hand you slowly and deliberately claim the best from the cosmopolitan path you end up more like Canada or perhaps Scandinavia.

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Mass protests over racial injustice, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a sharp economic downturn have plunged the United States into its deepest crisis in decades. Will the public embrace radical, systemic reforms, or will the specter of civil disorder provoke a conservative backlash?

For democratic countries like the United States, the COVID-19 crisis has opened up four possible political and socioeconomic trajectories. But only one path forward leads to a destination that most people would want to reach.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.